Page 1 of 5

This Product is Licensed to M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN (M.N.S.K.), Advocate,

Anantapuramu
JITENDRA SINGH VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 0 Supreme(SC) 487

2021 4 CGLJ 283; 2021 5 KLT 241; 2021 3 RLW(Raj) 2291; 2021 6
Supreme 185

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

M.R. SHAH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
JITENDRA SINGH – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – Respondent(s)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 13146 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2021

Mutation – Legal Consequences – Mutation entry does not confer any

right, title or interest in favour of person and mutation entry in revenue
record is only for fiscal purpose – As per settled proposition of law, if there
is any dispute with respect to title and more particularly when mutation
entry is sought to be made on the basis of Will, party who is claiming
title/right on the basis of Will has to approach appropriate civil court/court
and get his rights crystallised and only thereafter on the basis of decision
before civil court necessary mutation entry can be made – Mutation of
property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to
property nor has it any presumptive value on title – Such entries are
relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue – Title of property
can only be decided by a competent civil court. (Paras 5, 6 and 6.1)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal
Seat at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 508 of 2019, by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside order passed
by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, directing to mutate
the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records, which was sought
to be mutated on the basis of the will, the original respondent no.6 has
preferred the present special leave petition.

Findings of Court:

In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it
 Page 2 of 5

cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting
aside order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name
of petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of alleged will dated
20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court
to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998.

Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Cases referred:

Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC
689 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 – Relied [Para 6.1]
T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137 – Relied [Para
6]
Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 – Relied [Para ]
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12 – Relied [Para 6.1]
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC
191 – Relied [Para 6.1]

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of person
and mutation entry in revenue record is only for fiscal purpose.
(2) Title of property can only be decided by a competent civil court.

Advocates appeared :
For the Petitioner(s) : Parvesh Singh, Nishesh Sharma, Advocates

ORDER

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat
at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 508 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, directing to mutate the name
of the petitioner herein in the revenue records, which was sought to be mutated
on the basis of the will, the original respondent no.6 has preferred the present
 Page 3 of 5

special leave petition.

2. That the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 109/110 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to mutate his name in the revenue records
in respect of Khasra No. 41/03, 101/03, 314/03, 102/02, 132/02, 133/03,
142/02, 145/02, 146/02, 313/01, total area of 4.53 acres situated in village
Dudha, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, on the basis of the alleged will
executed by one Smt. Ananti Bai, widow of Bhagwandeen Bargahi – his
maternal grandmother. The alleged will was executed on 20.05.1998. It is
required to be noted that though initially it was the case on behalf of the
petitioner that Smt. Ananti Bai died on 20.05.1998, however, subsequently, it
was stated that there was a typographical error and Smt. Ananti Bai died on
27.08.2011. It is to be noted that the application for mutation was filed on
9.8.2011, i.e., even prior to the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. Therefore, even the
application was filed against Ananti Bai when she was alive.

3. By order dated 30.09.2011, the Nayab Tehsildar, District Satna directed to

mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records in respect of the
aforesaid lands solely on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. The
legal heirs and daughters of Smt. Ananti Bai preferred appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
The SDO allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Nayab
Tehsildar directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue
records. The petitioner herein preferred appeal before the learned Additional
Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa challenging the order passed by the SDO
dated 12.09.2018. The learned Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa
allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the SDO
dated 12.09.2018 and consequently the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar
directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on
the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 came to be restored. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order passed by
the Additional Commissioner observing that once the will is disputed and even
otherwise the petitioner who is claiming rights/title on the basis of the will
executed by the deceased Ananti Bai, the remedy available to the petitioner
would be to file a suit and crystalise his rights and only thereafter the necessary
consequence shall follow.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, the original applicant has preferred the present
special leave petition.

5. We have heard Shri Nishesh Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner.
 Page 4 of 5

It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the
revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his
name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti
Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011.
From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was
made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be
disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the
death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that
as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer
any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the
revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of
law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when
the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is
claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil
court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the
decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.

6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant singh v. Daulat
singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to
consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of
property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property
nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the
purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the
series of decisions thereafter.

6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it
is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not
confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the
revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land
revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further
observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be
decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the
cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v.
Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368;
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC
689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo
Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan
v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019)
13 SCC 70.

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it
cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the
order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the
petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated
 Page 5 of 5

20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to

crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

8. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

9. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.